Institute for Public Accuracy

January 12, 2006

News Release

DOUG CASSEL
Cassel is director of Notre Dame Law School's Center for Civil and
Human Rights. He said today: "At a time when the commander in chief
asserts that his war powers give him carte blanche, it is critical that
the Supreme Court be composed of individuals committed to the rule of
law. Justices must be prepared to tell a president who claims the power
to torture in our name, that American laws and values give a very
simple answer -- and that answer is no."

On Dec. 1, 2005, Cassel debated John Yoo, who was mentioned by Sen.
Biden on Thursday morning and who has been one of the main legal
planners of the Bush administration's torture policies. Here is part of
their exchange:

Cassel: "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody,
including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no
law that can stop him?"
Yoo: "No treaty."
Cassel: "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo."
Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

IVAN ELAND
Senior fellow at The Independent Institute, a non-partisan think tank,
Eland commented today: "Alito said that the Constitution has meaning
independent of what he or anyone else might like it to say. I couldn't
agree more. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to Congress
to decide on war. That may not be fashionable, given that the U.S.
hasn't fought a declared war since World War II, but that is what the
Constitution says. All the senators asking him questions are pledged to
uphold the Constitution, including Article I, Sec. 8, which gives to
Congress its war powers. They should ask Alito what the Constitution
says about what branch of government should decide on war. Particularly
those members, mostly Republicans, who claim the mantle of original
intent of the Constitution, should be upholding the power of the
Congress on its war powers. The president is claiming extraordinary war
powers when there is no declared war.

"Also, the Bush White House's lawyers have taken the position that the
president, in wartime, is allowed to disregard laws passed by Congress.
Examples are domestic spying without warrants, which are required by
statute, and declaring the option to circumvent an anti-torture statute
recently passed by Congress. The president is reading his
constitutional authority as commander-in-chief much much wider than the
founders had intended. Judge Alito should be asked to delineate his
conception of the scope of the executive power under the
commander-in-chief provision." Eland is a director of the Institute's
Center on Peace and Liberty and author of the book The Empire Has No Clothes.More Information

FRANCIS BOYLE
Boyle is professor of law at the University of Illinois. Alito stated
Wednesday: "I think that the war powers are divided between the
executive branch and the Congress."

Boyle said today: "Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution says: 'The
Congress shall have power ... to declare war...' The president has
nothing to do with it. When Congress declares war, then that
declaration triggers the Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution.
Alito is mistakenly attributing War Powers to the president in
violation of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution and in
violation of Congress's War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is 'the
supreme Law of the Land' according to Article VI of the Constitution.
Alito's argument is a fundamental alteration of one of the most basic
principles for both separation of powers and checks and balances set up
for our Republic by the Founders in the U.S. Constitution.

"But this unconstitutional argument for presidential war powers is part
of the standard Federalist Society ideology propounded by its prominent
members such as Alito, John Roberts, and John Yoo. It has led to the
abuses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, pervasive torture, 'extraordinary
renditions,' criminal NSA spying on U.S. citizens, 'enemy combatants,'
wholesale violations of the Geneva Conventions, assassinations, massive
religious and racial profiling of Muslims/Arabs/Asians, an
unconstitutional war against Iraq and the numerous other constitutional
atrocities perpetrated by Bush's hyper-imperial presidency. The
Democrats have not asked serious questions about most of these issues."
Boyle is author of the book Destroying World Order.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Uruknet receives daily many hacking attempts. To prevent this, we have 10 websites on 6 servers in different places.
So, if the website is slow or it does not answer, you can recall one of the other web sites: www.uruknet.info www.uruknet.de www.uruknet.biz www.uruknet.org.uk www.uruknet.com www.uruknet.org - www.uruknet.it www.uruknet.eu www.uruknet.net www.uruknet.web.at.it

:: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
:: We always mention the author and link the original site and page of every article.